fix(store): reorder core table registration

[holic]

fixes #2061

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 7e240d3

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 30 packages

Name	Type
@latticexyz/store	Patch
@latticexyz/cli	Patch
@latticexyz/dev-tools	Patch
@latticexyz/react	Patch
@latticexyz/store-indexer	Patch
@latticexyz/store-sync	Patch
@latticexyz/world-modules	Patch
@latticexyz/world	Patch
@latticexyz/abi-ts	Patch
@latticexyz/block-logs-stream	Patch
@latticexyz/common	Patch
@latticexyz/config	Patch
create-mud	Patch
@latticexyz/ecs-browser	Patch
@latticexyz/faucet	Patch
@latticexyz/gas-report	Patch
@latticexyz/network	Patch
@latticexyz/noise	Patch
@latticexyz/phaserx	Patch
@latticexyz/protocol-parser	Patch
@latticexyz/recs	Patch
@latticexyz/schema-type	Patch
@latticexyz/services	Patch
@latticexyz/solecs	Patch
solhint-config-mud	Patch
solhint-plugin-mud	Patch
@latticexyz/std-client	Patch
@latticexyz/std-contracts	Patch
@latticexyz/store-cache	Patch
@latticexyz/utils	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[yonadaa]

I think I prefer low-level approach described here: #2061 (comment)

It encapsulates this bootstrapping issue in StoreCore instead of having to handle it in every client/indexer implementation. I really like if they can "just work". It does make registerCoreTables a bit harder to maintain, but ideally Store should be ossified soon anyway.

Are there other reasons to not use .register()?

[yonadaa]

All inlined, it's gnarlier than I thought, but these low-level calls are still the best approach IMO

[holic]

@hanchon Do you wanna test if this fix works for you?